Ruffer v. 1701 Albemarle Owners Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruffer v. 1701 Albemarle Owners Corp.

248 A.D.2d 255, 668 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2666

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 19, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 255 (Ruffer v. 1701 Albemarle Owners Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ruffer v. 1701 Albemarle Owners Corp., 248 A.D.2d 255, 668 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2666 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered February 24, 1997, which awarded plaintiff the sum of $62,680.20, plus interest, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the order of the same court and Justice, entered February 18, 1997, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment upon his fourth cause of action, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the aforesaid judgment.

The court properly granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment for legal fees since, contrary to defendant’s contention, plaintiffs claim was not based on an account stated theory, but rather on the unambiguous language of the parties’ modified retainer agreement and a 1994 stipulation.

Concur— Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered February 24, 1997, which awarded plaintiff the sum of $62,680.20, plus interest, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the order of the same court and Justice, entered February 18, 1997, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment upon his fourth cause of action, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the aforesaid judgment.

The court properly granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment for legal fees since, contrary to defendant’s contention, plaintiffs claim was not based on an account stated theory, but rather on the unambiguous language of the parties’ modified retainer agreement and a 1994 stipulation.

Concur— Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 255, 668 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruffer-v-1701-albemarle-owners-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack